Wasting your time with things I find interesting, amusing, or enraging. Reinke does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations

An excellent interview of Ron Paul. I’m told that she’s a liberal, but I thought she was quite good and quite fair. She asked so very tough questions.

Thought you might find it amusing,

# – # – #

I think there are some very tough questions that could be asked of Ron Paul.

But that won’t happen. It’s be interesting. See it would take a real understanding of libertarianism to knife tot he heart of some tough issues.

How do you KNOW that what you prescribe will work? How do you get Congress to cooperate? How will you deal with an economic dislocation on a par with the end of ww1 or ww2? How will you pardon all non-violent drug offenders? Abortion goes back to the states; what about a right to life as enshrined in the Constitution? Isn’t the Statue of Liberty is inconsistent with troops on the border?

But, today’s “interviewers” are all about making themselves, or their choice for prez look good. Most interviewers are biased and lame. At least this lady pitched some high hard ones at him.

In the attention economy, what matters is your attention. Modern life is plagued with interruptions, some self-imposed (do you have a popup that lets you know when new mail arrives?), some not (phone ringing, people knocking on your door). The axiom is simple: your productivity is inversely proportional to the number of interruptions per hour. There exist psychological research that proves that doing two tasks -A,B- in an alternating sequence -ABABAB- is a lot harder than doing them on batches -AAABBB-. This is called task switch cost. Some research on economics proves that the same concept –switching tasks often is bad for productivity- is true organizations.

This is so simple it’s staggering. We thought: well, we don’t know how often we are interrupted, but we should! That’s how the interruptron was born.

The modern knowledge worker has a very short average time between interruptions. Some estimates are as low as 10 minutes. We need to be aware of when we have been interrupted and try to stretch time between interruptions as much as possible. Also, it’s important to be aware of when we are floating into ‘unproductive time’ and have some method to nag us back to work. This is the goal of the interruptron. Run it always, and you’ll have a good gasp of where your time goes.

***End Quote***

It’s impossible to get any serious thinking done in the office with all the noise and interruptions. This will just help you quantify it. Now if it could just get you into the “zone”.

Like this:

Sure, I can’t be in Vegas and go 14-0 on a teaser card. Wish it was skill! I think the pay tables only go to 14. http://www.sportsbook.com/info/comparative-odds.php#teaser I’d be getting 150-1. So my 10$ bet would be 1500. And, all my lesser ones would have won as well. I usually played 100$ with 4,6,8,10,12! More on the lower ones and less on the higher. Argh! And, I’m still behind Frenchy.

*** end quote ***

I usually bet 50 on four, 40 on six, 30 on eight, 20 on ten, and 10 on twelve!

Like this:

Please note: You are now required to enter an email address to send invitations from this page because several recipients of your invitations indicated they don’t know you. This safeguard is in place to prevent users from receiving unwanted invitations from people they don’t know. Customer Service can remove the restriction at anytime once you indicate that you understand this policy.

*** end quote ***

I don’t know what they are talking about. I don’t invite ever since Linkedin instituted their dumb “5 I don’t knows and your suspended”. I only accept invites.

The funnier think is that I am not, nor have I ever been, what they hate … an “open” networker.

Well, just as long as you remember, that one’s first duty, the 2008 Prime Directive, is to find your “next” job! Too many times, as you’ve probably heard me blog, I hear my turkeys tell me that “they were too busy with work to … …”. With unfortunate results. Both in family life and earning power.

>I agree with your blog comments. I think one interesting question is how “linked” are we through affiliations.

I think that “affiliations” can lead to “linking”.

> I would not hesitate to recommend you or introduce you, based upon my view of your work on XXXXXXXXXX and your writings I’ve seen.

Thanks for the kind words. If one can’t be “good”, be “persistent”? :-)

>I wouldn’t offer the same to someone just because they XXXXXXXXXXX.

No, but I bet you might be inclined to take a Lucht-style networking meeting with them. See that is the theory of the “granfalloon” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granfalloon where one can parlay an “imaginary connection” into a chance to create a weak link. Which then, over time, you can build to a strong one. I used that extensively first in my career, and later in selling.

>interesting that in at least four – I was linked to these people through you – two or three separations.

Well, in LinkedIn you need to connect to a few “paul revere” types or some of the “mega connectors” to be “findable”